To ban or not to ban the burka

Again the “veil controversy”. And as usual full of misinformation and deception.

Let me clear a few things up:

First off, no one is calling for an all-out ban on the veil though proponents often give this impression. Even the French ban is not an all-out ban; it merely bans all “conspicuous religious symbols” – not just the hejab but also the cross and skullcap – in public schools. The burqa ban too is a ban on face covering not an all-out veil ban.

Secondly, supporting a burka ban is not racist or discriminatory in and of itself. Proponents deceptively imply that the “authentic” Muslim woman is one who supports the veil, the niqab and burka and any opposition is an attack on “Muslim women”. But there is no homogeneous “Muslim community” anywhere. In fact, many women, including “Muslim women,” vehemently oppose the burqa and niqab and even the veil itself. Today, one of them – Amira Osman Hamed – is being tried in Sudan for refusing to wear the hejab (head covering).

Even the highest Islamic institution of Egypt, Al Azhar, obliges women to show their faces in court via a decree issued in 1880. And numerous Islamic scholars oppose the niqab or face covering and consider it un-Islamic.

Moreover, as Algerian secularist Marieme Helie Lucas says, the rights of the unveiled are just as implicated as those who are veiled. The “right to veil” rapidly becomes the right to beat up those who do not. Yes, certainly there are women who freely choose to wear the niqab or burqa but on a mass social scale, they are impositions.

Thirdly, whilst the niqab or burka are often framed within the context of “a woman’s right to choose”, it has to do with much more than mere religious identity and religious beliefs. Apart from the fact that it is a symbol of women’s subordination, it is also a tool of Islamism. The increase in the burka and niqab are a direct result of the rise of the far-Right political Islamic movement and part of that movement’s broader agenda to segregate society and impose sex apartheid.

To ban or not to ban the burka? Ban it, of course.

And not merely because of security matters or for purposes of identification and communication as is often stated but in order to protect and promote the rights of women and girls – all of them – and not just the few who wear the burka and niqab…

Frankly, I think every secularist and women’s rights defender should support a burka/niqab ban. That they don’t shows a lack of moral courage and clarity in the face of the religious Right’s barbarity and misogyny.

For me personally, nothing better portrays the outrage of the burqa and niqab than the below photo of an Afghan woman who is hardly discernible sitting amongst rubbish bags. The burqa and niqab dehumanises and relegates real live human beings – many of them children – to a life in a mobile prison, straight jacket – to a life within a rubbish bag.

How can anyone defend it or worse refuse to call for a ban?





If you are still unsure, here are a few must read articles: 

Secularism vs communalism: learning from the ban on full face covering veil in France by Marieme Helie Lucas

The Law of Brothers versus the Law of the Republic by Karima Bennoune

The burka empowering? I think not! by Maryam Namazie

Read them and let sanity prevail.


  1. Alverant says

    I remember years ago I was going to a Walmart in August. I got out of my car and could feel the heat off the asphalt. Walking to her car was a woman in a full dark blue niqab, darker than the one in the picture. It was the first time I ever saw one in person. My only thought was how hot it must be for her in there. How could anyone wear that willingly in that weather? A world view that has woman wear that is wrong.

    • nott says

      It’s already been banned, by the Public Order Act. “Behaviour likely to cause fear or distress”.

      1. Nobody knows who’s inside, might be a convict (already happened) or a robber (already happened)
      2. The sight is deeply distressing to people who see burka as a tool of abject oppression.

      It’s only a matter of officially acknowledging that non-Muslims have feelings as well. Not to forget those Muslim women who fight the “garment”.

      • says

        I think we ought to be very wary about allowing one person finding another person’s garb distressing to be considered a valid reason to prohibit that second person from wearing it. After all, proponents of the burqa or niqab could just as easily claim to find the sight of an unveiled woman distressing.

        And for what it’s worth, I am very wary about a ban on full face-coverings. Obviously I’d like to live in a world where no one felt obliged to wear them, but a legislative ban just feels too much like punishing the victim. I may be wrong, but I suspect that this is a battle that can only be won by the long, slow grind of persuading people out of far-right Islam by force of reason and the free spread of discussion.

        • nott says

          I think we ought to be very wary about allowing one person finding another person’s garb distressing to be considered a valid reason to prohibit that second person from wearing it. After all, proponents of the burqa or niqab could just as easily claim to find the sight of an unveiled woman distressing.

          We’d have to resort to generally accepted norms then. Like in case of Nazi garb, or full nudity. or going out in a KKK white hood, or on all fours on a SM leash, lot’s of examples. Burka is a tool and widely recognised symbol of oppression.

          (…)but a legislative ban just feels too much like punishing the victim

          How so? If she’s a victim, then she’d find it liberating, I suppose. If her “guardian” would just keep her at home, then it’s unlawful imprisonment, the police should interfere pronto. Actually, the social services should actively monitor the likely cases.

          I may be wrong, but I suspect that this is a battle that can only be won by the long, slow grind of persuading people out of far-right Islam by force of reason and the free spread of discussion.,

          Sorry mate, I have that tiny little suspicion lurking in the corners of my mind that this proposition is kinda on the slightly unrealistic side. Reason and orthodoxy never stood in one room together.

  2. mildlymagnificent says

    I think it depends a great deal on the society in question. Several years ago my husband was teaching in an English language middle-high school for recent immigrants here (South Australia). His observation was that most girls who started out wearing headscarves, veiling the face wasn’t allowed in school, gradually acclimatised themselves. By the time they’d been there for 6 or more months, their scarf wearing was very much like many other girls non-makeup wearing. They’d leave home dressed and groomed according to parents wishes, by the time they arrived at school or shortly thereafter, head coverings were off / makeup was on. At that point they simply complied with school rules about appropriate dress and grooming.

    It might have helped that this was a school for everyone whose English language skills and/or lack of previous schooling meant that they were unsuitable for admission to ordinary middle and high schools. Refugees who’d never seen a chair or a toilet shared classes with children of diplomats – and they came from all over the world.

  3. Will says

    The summary of your arguments, beyond berating people who disagree with you as cowardly and confused, is that the religious freedoms of Muslim women should be impinged upon because you personally find them distasteful.

    Now forgive me for being unconvinced by this particular line of arguing. Indeed forgive me for being somewhat bemused by your bevy of secularist accolades, displayed to the left. What is secularism if not a guard against the enforcing of a particular groups religious norms upon another’s?

    If you are going to run the argument of ‘repression’ then at least don’t try to veil (ha) it behind some flimsy reference to secularism. You aren’t a secularist if you think the role of the state is to enforce your particular distastes (apparently founded upon some types of clothing looking like other objects which you find distasteful?) upon others.

    • says

      Of course you are not convinced. It has taken years to convince some secularists in the west that Sharia courts are bad – and still many resist. That is the nature of pushing for fundamental changes. Many opposed the smoking ban, or the ban on FGM. I remember 20 years ago, women’s rights activist saying FGM was people’s culture and needed to be respected. It’s not a question of what I think. Important human issues of our time need courageous responses. Not to support a burka ban shows lack of moral courage at a time when people need secularists to stand up to Islamists. You are sadly mistaken if you think the burka is just a form of clothing or a choice.

      • Will says

        This reply seems not to address my fundamental point.

        You repeat the previous ad hominem point about your opponents, and follow it up by denying agency to people who make clothing decisions you disagree with.

        High heels have objectively harmful effects, they damage women, and are a creation of the cultural norms of certain societies. However I rarely see people defining them as indicative of a lack of agency amongst Western women, grounds for their prohibition.

        So it IS about what you think: you personally disagree with a particular religious practice, and so you want legislation against it. Your personal objection does not form grounds for legislation in a secular society… coercion might, but your argument for coercion seems as unconvincing as mine would be were I to argue against high heels.

        So again, I remain unconvinced, and calling me a coward, again, isn’t going to make your argument any more convincing, or your secular credentials any less contradicted by this stance.

    • alanflynn says

      I agree with Will. This call for a universal ban on the niqab is a violation of the right of the individual. Maryam acknowledges that ‘certainly there are women who freely choose to wear the niqab or burqa’ and then rides roughshod over their choice by labelling them as ‘impositions’. I don’t think that Maryam’s comparisons with sharia courts, smoking or fgm are valid. Regarding sharia: certainly no-one should be subject to a system of ‘justice’ that they do not subscribe to (sharia is a huge issue which I won’t digress on here). Smoking & fgm cause direct harm to people’s bodies so bans are justified on those grounds. I call on secularists to stand up for the right of muslimahs to wear the face veil in the ordinary course of their lives – most typically walking down the street – whilst recognising that in the course of public service this right can be suspended where a clear argument against its use prevails: in a courtroom, for a doctor, teacher etc. I also call for the right of people to be naked in public. As I always say: a woman – or a man – should be free to walk down the street in the burqa or in the buff according to their freely chosen beliefs. The secular state should disinterestedly defend both parties and defending freedom of choice is the assured way to stand up to anti-democratic Islamism.

      • Paulo Alves Reis says

        I agree mostly with what you express.

        There are situations where we (society) need to be intransigent, as for religious mutilation (circumcision male and female), as for speeches inciting racism or jihad by hand and sword, as for sharia court.

        The use of a burka (and other religious symbols) is often imposed by the family. In the origin of our convictions and beliefs are the family, the society and the era in which we live. We will not escape its influences. It is with these structures that we build ourselves as individuals. Some are healthy and some not healthy. But it is my point of view, how can I impose on others.

        In the issue of the burka’s, my personal point of view is easy: I’m against (it’s ugly and makes me feel claustrophobia).
        From the political point of view I am not against the use of religious symbols by whom being of legal age want to do it. For minors should be banned.

        The choice to use religious symbols should be a right as the right to vote.
        The religious practice is a cultural and family question and as a pluralistic society we have to accept it even for children’s.

        As a society we need to create support structures for adults, men and women who feel difficulty in liberating from families that want to impose these rules upon them.
        I’m aware of examples of women and men’s who maintained many complicated situations (on ethnic and religious motifs) because they were too fragile to get free.
        I am in favour of empowerment for each one of us in every situation.

        In short I am in favour of an interdiction of the burka and other religious symbols by minors.

    • A. Noyd says


      What is secularism if not a guard against the enforcing of a particular groups religious norms upon another’s?

      First, being against the veil doesn’t necessarily stem from a competing religious belief. So prohibiting veiling is not necessarily enforcing one group’s religious norms against another’s. (That said, it is secularism’s duty to make sure people whose objections to the veil are religiously based understand that anti-veil laws aren’t there to legitimize their religious beliefs.)

      Second, the norms of one group shouldn’t be prioritized over the human rights of the individuals that comprise that group. Notice that secularists also speak out against children of fundamentalist or evangelical Christian parents being homeschooled within a hyper-Christian curriculum that denies evolution and climate change, etc. Or against fundamentalist Mormons compelling girls to participate in polygamous marriages. That these practices stem from religious beliefs shouldn’t keep us from trying to eradicate them in the interest of their victims.

      • Will says

        How often the desire to save is a veil for the desire to rule!

        If I disagree with something, it is all too easy to assume that anyone who acts contrary does so without agency, without choice. The assumption of coercion however is not easy to prove, and the logic to prove it places all of us in a shaky position indeed! This is especially true in the West and in those countries where women wear the niqab specifically against official legislation, where no coercion seems present.

        It is a bit of a stretch to say that a niqabi who is a convert, unmarried, has no agency at all: does what she does not out of religious conviction but instead out of a desire to dehumanise herself. The liberalism that underpins so much secular ideals seems fundamentally intended to guard against these kind of arbitrary removals of liberty. The defining of people who hold unconventional religious positions as being without free choice seems a sloppy and wholly illiberal attempt to circumvent this.

  4. mildlymagnificent says

    You are sadly mistaken if you think the burka is just a form of clothing or a choice.

    Exactly. It’s one thing for women who have dozens or hundreds of choices in clothing styles to “freely” choose this particular form. It’s another entirely if there is little or no choice at all. Though I have my reservations about how “free” this choice is for most women, even in my own community.

  5. lorn says

    Florida, and as I understand it, most states, have laws on the books outlawing wearing anything that obscures a persons identity. There are often tacit understandings of exceptions for ski masks, not a big thing in Florida, and Halloween masks, but I think everyone can understand the importance of being able to identify individuals and how anonymity can promote criminality and general bad behavior.

    It also promotes thinking of the person with their face covered as a non-entity.

    I’ve been told that this law was often written with the KKK, with their tendency to perform abominable acts while wearing masks to avoid blow-back and prosecution, in mind but others tell me it predates the civil war.

    Personally I have some issues with people covering their faces. IMHO the face is a key identifier, and tool, of humanity. Looking at a face I can usually get clues as to a persons mood and intentions. Looking at each others faces we can communicate without saying a word.

  6. Veronica WIkman says

    Here’s a copy of a letter that I have sent to a number of UK newspaper today:

    Ban the dehumanisation of women

    I fully support Oxford imam Dr Taj Hargey’s call for the UK to join France and Belgium in outlawing public anonymity, which would mean a ban on wearing the burka and the niqab (face veil) in public (The Times, 18 September).

    Women should not be short-changed on their human rights for fear of angering a group of people who prefer to regard women as inferior to men and who wish to severely limit their range of action in society and keep them in a subservient “speak only when spoken to” position.

    It is the job of any government in a democracy to ensure that human rights are respected and recognised by all citizens. This needs to be prioritised above any other consideration.

    Our faces are an inalienable part of our identity as human beings. It’s hard to think of anything that characterises an individual as much as his or her face. Facial expression is fundamentally important for our communication, as is demonstrated by the fact that babies as young as four months old can recognise emotion in faces and need face to face communication to develop normally. To render women faceless is to deprive them of their identity, their individuality and their ability to communicate fully with the world around them.

    I believe the burka and the niqab represent a continuous slap in the face of the women who are bullied and conditioned to wearing them. They also represent a slap in the face of any attempt to protect and promote a just and fair society in which all citizens are respected and treated equally.

    Few things upset me more than seeing a woman reduced by her burka to an anonymous object – the ghost of a human trapped inside, like a butterfly in a jar.

    We cannot regulate what people wear in their homes and places of worship, but in the public space that we all share we must insist that every individual is recognised as a human being. To render women faceless is to deprive them of their humanity.

  7. Laila Rasheed says



    01 October 2011

    Man is the only being among the mammals who is born naked and feels the necessity of putting on clothes. Man’s attire has always shown variety throughout the ages according to the period, customs, climate, professions, offices, ages, etc. While there have been frequent changes in attire in the societies of Indo-European origin, Asian communities have preferred to be more conservative. The Ottomans are a good example of the variations in the attire of different layers of society. For instance, while the turban worn by the sultan had three crests, the one of the grand vizier had only two crests and those worn by the public could not have more than one. The headgear, costumes and the colors of the courtiers, the tradesmen, the members of religious orders varied. This was protected by law.


    What was not stated in the Quran was introduced into religious practice, and customs related to a man’s attire were considered to be part of his devotional lifestyle. For instance, the turban had been worn by nearly everybody at a given period of history to keep the head warm. There was nothing wrong in this. What was unwarranted, however, was attributing a religious character to it. We must go over the verses in the Quran to see what has been ordained as far as man’s attire is concerned.
    26 – O you children of Adam! We have bestowed raiment upon you to cover your private parts as well as to be an adornment to you.
    7 The Purgatory, 26

    The minimum covering for both men and women has been since times immemorial the covering of the private parts of a person as foreseen in Verses 26-22 of the Sura The Purgatory. There are three verses in the Quran that have reference to a woman’s attire.


    31 – Say to the believing women to lower their eyes and guard their private parts, and not display their ornaments (ziynet) except what is apparent outwardly, and cover their bosom with their veils (hýmar). And not show their ornaments except to their husbands or their fathers or the fathers of their husbands or their sons or the sons of their husbands or their brothers or the sons of their brothers and the sons of their sisters or their women or their captives or male servants free of physical need or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex. They should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. And O believers! All of you shall repent to God that you may succeed.
    24 The Light, 31

    The Arabic word hýmar means simply ‘cover.’ It has a wide range of meanings. It may be any cover such as the table napkin. If it is used to cover the head, it will signify the headscarf. However, if the head had been the target, the expression should have been hýmar-ur-ras meaning the covering of the head. However, in the context, one should understand the portion of the body corresponding to the bosom. Therefore it is the low-necked attire that is meant here. Even though the headscarf was the corresponding meaning, one should conclude that it was to be used to cover a woman’s bosom and not her head.

    Another important expression mentioned in the verse is the word ‘ornaments,’ which, to our own interpretation should mean the bosom. This, we believe, is in harmony with the rest of the sentence in which the covering of the low neck is imperative. Moreover, striking of the feet comes next, which might attract attention to the breasts that would be wiggling as a consequence of the striking movement, considering the brassiere did not exist at that time. Then the verse makes an exception for those ornaments that are self-conspicuous. Big breasts cannot be hidden no matter what one does, as a result of physical movements of the body, or may become even more conspicuous when the dress under the effect of a strong wind sticks to the body. So the verse explains this as a natural phenomenon. We read in other verses that women nursed their children sometimes for two years. When her baby cries she may be obliged to nurse it in the presence of her next of kin like her father. This commentary provides us with the necessary elbowroom under the circumstances. One other point that corroborates our argument is the fact that this word makes no allusion to the hanging objects that adorn a woman since the verse also mentions that they can let their ornaments be seen in the presence of women. Dangling ornaments may, of course, be used to show off rather than be an object for seduction. The striking of the feet would not render conspicuous the finery or the jewelry of the woman. Moreover, there is the fact that adornments may be used everywhere. Even during prayer they may be used, so they don’t have to be hidden (see 7 The Purgatory, 31). From all of these it follows that the word ornament is used to refer to the breasts of the woman.


    The word tasattur, which means the veiling of a woman, does not exist in the Quran. It has come to be used in the way that it is today much later. The Arabic expression humur and its singular form hýmar mentioned in the verse is a cover, any cover rather than a headscarf. The dictionaries Al Mujam ul Vasýf, Al Munjid, Lisan-ý Arab, Tajul Arus may be consulted. The connotation of the hýmar in the sense of headscarf emerged much later, following the interpretation and practices of sectarian scholarship. The Quran speaks of the bosom as the part of the body that must be covered, and not the head. The words that correspond to the headscarf worn by Arabs are mýkna and nasýf and not hýmar, for which any dictionary of the Arabic language may be consulted.


    It is advisable to examine the following quotation from the Quran with reference to the veiling of women:
    59 – O Prophet! Tell your wives and daughters and the believing women, to cover themselves. Thus, they will be recognized and avoid being molested. God is the Forgiver, Merciful.
    33 The Parties, 59

    The keyword here is jilbab which means any clothing like ‘chemise’, ‘dress,’ etc. In no way does it mean a covering special to any part of the body. Yet, the interpretations of traditionalist Islamists have ascribed to this word such meanings as to imply the covering of the entire body according to some, of two eyes or one eye according to others and of the body except for the face, hands and feet according to others. Had God’s intention been to see women covered from head to toe, He would have explicitly stated it. A woman’s covering her head and wearing the veil are nothing but later fabrications of traditionalists.

    For instance, God has detailed every portion of the limbs that ought to be washed during the performance of ablution. Had He wanted to set well-defined limits, He would have clearly delineated them.
    The Quran that gives a detailed account of the events related to the tribes in the past would surely not spare mentioning this fact in one single sentence. It is not an omission by God, far from it. It had not been His intention to put on such categorical restrictions. As a matter of fact, the approach in 33 Sura The Purgatory, 59 to the issue is manifestly flexible. The verse implies that the apparel of a woman will reveal her identity and keep her from being molested. It is told that during the era of the Prophet, there were women who went around semi-naked, with breasts generously exposed to view. Before the supremacy of Islam, it is said that the ritual of pilgrimage to the Kaaba was performed by women in a naked state (Kurtubi, al Jami-il Ahkamil Kuran.) We can deduce from the verse mentioned above that during the pre-Islamic period women were used to exhibiting their ornaments (ziynets). The decent woman, who preferred to preserve her chastity, well knew how she should dress in order to avoid harassment by men. However, regardless of the decency of her dress, a woman may be the subject of attacks. The verse addresses the woman to suggest she simply beware of indecent proposals by men who would approach her, attracted by her manifest intention expressed by her clothing. The ideal garments are left to the discretion of the wearer. Again, had it been the intention of God to lay down a categorical principle, He would have revealed the verse accordingly. The only other verse related to the veiling of women is 24 The Light, 60:

    60 – As for your women past the age of bearing children, who have no hope of marriage, they commit nothing wrong if they take off their garments (siyab), but in such a way that they do not display their ornaments (ziynet). But it is best for them to be modest and God is the Hearer, Knower. Such elderly women as are past the prospect of marriage, there is no blame on them if they lay aside their (outer) garments, provided they make not a wanton display of their beauty; but it is best for them to be modest; and God is one who sees and knows all things
    24 The Light, 60


    The veiling fashions prevailing today which involve the wearing of tcharchafs, veils and headscarves have not been described in any way in the Quran. They are the outcome of customs and traditions. It is said that in the Prophet’s time men and women did cover their heads. 16 The Honey Bees, 91 speaks of the garments made to protect men from the heat. The covering of heads, especially in hot climates, is an expedient measure to protect oneself against heat. Yet, for women it has assumed a religious character and became a binding duty. The prayer performed by a man wearing a turban would infinitely enhance his meritoriousness in God’s sight. The fact they are not referred to in the Quran is an obvious evidence of the absence of religious character.

    Those who stage demonstrations in our day candidly believe that this is prescribed in the Quran. This is coupled with the reactions of the extremists in defense of traditions and the acts of fundamentalists.


    Having failed to find the necessary material, traditionalism had to fabricate them in order to pen up the women based on fabricated hadiths, interpretations and sectarian comments.
    52 – No other women are lawful for you after this nor to change them for other wives, no matter how much you admire their beauty.
    33 The Parties, 52

    This verse shows that the apparel worn by women did not prevent hiding the beauty of a woman from one’s scrutiny. Had they been clad in tcharschafs, veiled and wearing a headscarf their beauty would certainly be camouflaged.

    The hadiths that served one’s purpose were picked up while those that went against one’s grain were ignored. In the body of the hadiths it is stated that both men and women used the same water from the same receptacle while performing their ablution (see Bukhari-Vudu, Abu Davud-Taharat, Ibn-Maja-Taharat, Nasai-Taharat), considering that the ablution involved the feet, arms up to the elbows, face and head, men and women had those parts of their bodies uncovered. Yet, the traditionalist Islamists seem to ignore these hadiths and cling to their wishful imaginings.

    Had there been a definite prescription as to the manner of the veiling of women it would have been explicitly stated. Yet, according to the communities and times, there have been infinite variations on the issue. In addition to the traditions and customs, the points of view adopted under the Omayyads and Abbasids lead to the development of this custom into a religious issue. One should remember that the Quran addressed all of humanity, to communities living in differing climates and having different ways of life.


    In Shaffi and Hanbali sects, every part of a woman’s body including the face and hands must be covered. In Hanafi and Maliki sects the hands and the face may be uncovered under normal circumstances (Sabuni Tafsirul Ayatil Ahkam). The following have been recorded: Suudi: “The woman shall veil one of her eyes and the portion of her face corresponding to that part of the covered eye. Only one eye may be left open.” Abu Hayvan: “Such had been the custom in Andalousia. Only one eye of the woman was seen” (Abu Hayvan, Al Bahrul Muhit). The Shafi imams have also prohibited glancing at the fingernails of the woman, even when cut (Ibn Hajar al Haytami- Lawful and Unlawful in Islam). “The covering made a binding duty by Islam also includes her face” (fýkhus sýyra) (Sabuni, Revai 2/156).

    There is no end to the absurd conclusions reached by traditionalists about the covering of women. The mentality that says that the place where a woman had been sitting a while ago should not be occupied by a man, that a woman should hold an administrative position, that a woman should be the slave of the man and that women are creatures most of whose ultimate place is hell is the essential attitude that must be condemned. The other minor details like the veiling of women is a consequence of the mentality described in Chapter 21. The wearing of a headscarf has been on the agenda only recently; it is in fact a variant of the issue related to the parts of a woman’s body that had to be covered. It has also been debated as to whether one or two eyes of a woman could be uncovered. May we once again remind our readers that all these comments do not appear in the Quran.


    The traditional idea as to which part of a man’s body must be covered is from the waist down to the knees. It is true that there is a hadith according to which the Prophet’s calf was exposed to view. The sectarian imams preferred to adopt another hadith that ordained the covering of a man’s body from the waist down to his knees. If one is to adopt the latter view, the football match played by men in shorts should not be watched. Another fabrication is the prohibition of wearing yellow and red (see Muslim Libas and Mishkat). Shaving the beard has been deemed contrary to religious prescriptions and sunna…
    A man should not cut his beard according to most of the sects. The Quran is the only jurisdiction in which there are no such absurdities by God!
    51 – It is not sufficient for them that We have revealed the Book to you which is read out to them.
    29 The Spider, 51

  8. deepak shetty says

    Lets agree that the burkha is something that should not be worn by anyone and the people defending the wearing of the burkha are usually a bunch of assholes. I have really loathed the burkha after, as a teen, I have seen a 4 year old girl made to wear it

    or worse refuse to call for a ban?
    Lets say the US bans the burkha everywhere. Lets say the case is appealed to the Supreme Court and lets say it concurs , the federal government does have the right to decide what citizens wear in public ( not just some restricted cases like security or court or schools). Is there where you want to be – Do you not see the implications?
    The burkha isnt a problem that can be legislated away without having potential future consequences. It has to be done by social change.(something that you are already doing )

  9. Gerald Goldberg says

    In the Quran, there is no word for marriage. The only word used is nikah, which means ‘having sex’ or ‘sexual intercourse’ in Arabic.
    According to Quran a wife is some one with whom you have sex with.
    Different types of wives are:
    1. A paid wife with an open ended contract (House wife)
    2. A paid wife with a fixed term contract (Muta wife)
    3. A paid visitation only wife with a visitation contract (Misyar wife)
    4. Slave girl (bought gifted or captured)
    The price paid for vagina is called Mahr. Thus according to Quran a contract wife is like a whore who gets paid for her vagina called Mahr while a slave girl wife is like a whore who does not get paid a Mahr for her vagina.
    Q 4.24: Seek out wives by means of your wealth, and give those with whom ye have cohabited their price.
    A wife has no say in the way the husband approaches her for enjoyment.
    Prophet said (Bukhari: Volume 7, Book 62, Number 81): “you are given the right to enjoy the women’s private parts”.
    Q 2.223: Your women are a tilth for you, so go to your tilth (have sexual relations in any manners), when or how you will. (trs. Hilali & Khan)
    Like a client can dump a whore at will and pick up another one, the Quran says a husband can dump his wife and get another one.
    Q 4.20. If you want to exchange one wife for another than don’t take back any part of what you paid her.
    Hadiths say that Hasan Bin Ali, Prophet Mohammad’s beloved grand son, who died young, went through more than 70 wives in his short life.
    The husband is like a client of a whore. Once a wife is paid Mahr she is obliged to submit her private parts 24/7 to him.
    If a whore changes her mind and does not want sex she can. She can return the money and kick him out. However, in Islam a wife does not have that liberty. Once the Mahr is paid her vagina is his to enjoy. She must submit to him any time he gets an urge.
    Ibn Majah 1854: “Prophet said if he asks her to surrender herself to him for sexual intercourse on a camel’s back, she should not refuse him even on a camel’s saddle.”
    However in our prophet’s case, whenever he had a huge urge (erection) and his child-wife got scared and ran away during foreplay, he had to catch her, bribe her with a new doll and drag her back to bed.
    If a wife refuses sex to a husband Allah ordered husbands to give her a good whipping.
    Quran 4.34: Scourge (whip) your wife if she does not obey.
    And ordered angels to curse her all night.
    Bukhari 4.54.460: “If a husband calls his wife to his bed for sex and if she , he angels will curse her till morning”.
    Once a wife is whipped badly, she cannot lie down and have sex without severe pain, seriously limiting the ways a husband can approach her thus violating aya 2.223. Our prophet told the momins to postpone sex with her.
    Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 132:
    The Prophet said, “When you flog your wife like you flog your slave then postpone the sexual intercourse.”
    A n open ended contract is signed for a negotiated price for an undetermined period. In addition wife gets boarding lodging and clothing. However if the husband decides to dump her, he can break the contract verbally and kick her out (4.20) any time he wants to but he cannot get any money back he paid for her vagina even if he used it for five minutes.
    Q 4.20: if you replace a wife by another, you cannot get any part of Mahr back even if it was a large sum.
    A broken contract cannot be renewed until the her vagina is used by another momin and is then released (halala).
    Q 2.230: And if he has divorced her, then she is not lawful unto him thereafter until she has sex with another husband. And if he has divorced her then she is not lawful unto him thereafter until she has married another husband. Then, if the other husband divorces her, it is no sin on both of them that they reunite.
    On the other hand a wife has no right to break a contract similarly. She can only break it if she can prove him to be impotent or insane in a court of law.
    A man can sign a contract with a woman to use her vagina for a pre-determined period at negotiated price.
    The contract can be renewed without the requirement of interim use of her vagina by another man.
    In this contract a husband visits a misyar wife for sexual pleasure and pays her for each visit. The husband does not have to provide her boarding and lodging.
    A slave girl doesn’t get paid Mahr for her vagina. She is acquired as a free gift (Maria was a free gift for Prophet from Egyptian king), bought from another owner (sometimes prophet took away pretty girls for free from their owners*) or captured after killing her father or husband (prophet took 20% of the captured women from a raid booty).
    Sahih Muslim, Book 019, Number 4345:
    It has been narrated on the authority of Salama (b. al-Akwa’) who said: We fought against the Fazara and Abu Bakr was the commander over us. Abu Bakr bestowed a young girl upon me as a prize. She was one of the prettiest girls in Arabia. So we arrived in Medina. I had not yet disrobed her (had not have sex with her) when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) met me in the street and said: Give me that girl, O Salama. I said: Messenger of Allah, she has fascinated me. I had not yet disrobed her. When on the next day, the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) met me again in the street (Salama was parading the young beauty to make other jihadis jealous). Prophet said: O Salama, give me that girl, may God bless your father. I said: She is for you. Messenger of Allah! By Allah, I have not yet disrobed her.
    Quranic ayas 4.3, 4.24, 23.6, 33.50 & 70.30 allow a Muslim man to have sex with slave girls. A slave girl can be bought or acquired by killing infidels and capturing their wives and daughters.
    Slave girls are the best bargain Islam has to offer to Muslim men but unfortunately Muslims are denying themselves this great reward from Allah just to appease infidel west. The uses of a slave-girl are:
    1. They provide sex 24/7.
    2. They are used as house maid
    3. Offered as sex partners to overnight house guests.
    4. Offered as gifts to family and friends for a few days or for good*.
    (*The History of Tabari, vol 8, pge 29-30: From his share of captive women, prophet gave his son-in-law, Ali a slave girl, Raytah bt Hilal to enjoy her at his will. He also presented Uthman b. Affan, his son-in-law, another slave girl Zainab b. Hayan, and bestowed another girl (name unknown) to his father in-law Omar Ibn Khattab. Omar gave that girl to his son Abdullah. Most of Prophet’s other elite companions received slave girls as gifts).
    5. Sold to raise cash, if the need be.
    Islam is the only religion which allows momins to pimp the bodies of their slave girls for side incomes. Thus Quran taught 1400 years back what modern day pimps are learning now, that is to control many prostitutes and get rich on their income.
    However Islam is a very compassionate religion. While many pimps force their prostitutes to sell their bodies, Islam prefers that momins avoid coercion.
    Q 24.33. Do not compel your slave girls to prostitution to drive income from her body if they are not willing.
    But of course Allah is a forgiving God. In case momins do beat them up and force them to prostitute, Allah said he will forgive them.
    Q 24.33. (continued) But if you did force her to prostitute Allah can forgive you because he is forgiving and compassionate.

Leave a Reply